IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 LOWER DOLORES RIVER IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN OVERVIEW Improving the Health of Na ve Fish and Protec ng Water Supplies: An Ac on Plan

2 Photo: John Fielder Photo: Sam Green, Cortez Journal Photo: Sam Green, Cortez Journal

3 Why do na ve fish ma er and why are we concerned about them? The lannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub were once plentiful in the lower Dolores River, but are now in danger of disappearing from their former habitat and are threatened across the West. There are several reasons why we should be concerned about these ish: Declining numbers of native ish: Current monitoring shows declining populations of native ish since McPhee Dam went into full operation in the late 1990 s. Water rights protection: If any of the three native ish species are listed in the future as "threatened" or "endangered" by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act, the lower Dolores River could be subject to legal requirements or restrictions. In other regions with listed species, implementation of a science-based approach with broad institutional support to address the needs of the at-risk species has proven effective at minimizing federal intervention. Should any of the three native ish in the Dolores be listed, the implementation of the voluntary conservation actions described in the Lower Dolores Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan would reduce the risk that federal restrictions could adversely affect irrigation deliveries from the Dolores Project. The intrinsic value of native species: These rare and unique ish have inhabited the Colorado River Basin for millions of years and are found nowhere else in the world. Preserving a natural environment: Native ish are an integral part of the river ecosystem, and providing suf icient habitat for them will bene it other plant and animal species. Bluehead sucker Flannelmouth sucker Roundtail chub 1

4 Why are na ve fish in danger? Native ish seemed to be surviving before the dam was built, even though the river periodically dried up with only pools left below the Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company (MVIC) diversion. Why do they need more water now that there are year round lows from McPhee Reservior? Native ish are adapted to the highly variable conditions of Southwestern rivers, including the snowmelt-driven timing and quantity of runoff, and low lows in late summer. The life cycle and reproductive strategies of native ish evolved to take advantage of the unique conditions presented by these rivers. Water development has altered these conditions. Before McPhee Dam was built, the MVIC diversion did not divert a signi icant portion of the spring runoff. High lows downstream of the diversion cleaned silt and mud from pools and rif les, and maintained diverse instream habitats that native ish need to ind food, escape predators, and reproduce. Additionally, the reproductive success of native ish is closely linked to natural cycles of springtime runoff and warming water temperatures. Despite changes to lower Dolores River lows in the pre-mcphee era, largely natural spring lows allowed native ish to reproduce, then survive in the sizable pools of water remaining in late summer and through the winter. After the dam was built, small spills, as well as consecutive non-spill years (e.g., ), began reducing the quality and amount of habitat required to meet the needs of native ish. Also, spring releases from the dam are now later in the season, which has reduced the chances for successful spawning and survival of native ish. Another factor currently affecting native ish populations is smallmouth bass. These non-native warmwater ish were introduced into the river accidentally during a managed spill through the spillway in 1993 while the gates were under repair. Smallmouth bass are voracious predators. When lows are low, all the ish concentrate in available pools, and native species have less room to escape from smallmouth bass. 2

5 Changing Condi ons: Pre and Post McPhee Reservoir Subject Pre McPhee Post McPhee Water Diverted from the Dolores Basin into the McElmo and San Juan Drainages Approximately 134,000 AF Average (66, ,000 AF) Approximately 235,000 AF Average (113, ,000 AF) Number of Acres Irrigated and Dura on of Irriga on Season Fishing Whitewater Boa ng Flushing Flows and Impact on Na ve Fish Baseflows and Impact on Na ve Fish Non-na ve Fish Predators and Compe tors Barriers to Fish Movement 37,500 acres With reduced deliveries most years by early August Seasonal trout fishery in the reach that was inundated by McPhee Reservoir (shortened late season by MVIC Main Canal diversions). Whitewater Boa ng opportuni es, defined as number of days at or above 500 cfs, averaged 54.6 days/year between April 25 -July 1. During the 46-year period of record for the 1975 Wild & Scenic River Study, "boa ng opportuni es occurred in nearly every year" (only two years had none). High flows cleaned riffles, preserved deep pools, and opened side channels. Appropriately med peak flows that occurred every year were conducive to successful na ve fish spawning. Baseflow tapering to near zero confined na ve fish to deep pools; zero riffle habitat availability for 1-3 month period every year. No significant warmwater non-na ve fish popula ons present. Predatory (piscivorous) fish impacts negligible - trout and na ve species occupied different habitats, trout above MVIC diversion and na ves below, during summer months. May have been some compeon from sunfish, ca ish, carp, bullheads, and crayfish. The MVIC diversion dam and low water in the river below the diversion dam during the height of the irriga on season (July- Sept.) impacted the ability of na ve fish to find suitable habitat un l a er diversions ceased in the fall. 73,600 acres 28,500 acres from Yellow Jacket to Dove Creek; 7,600 acres on the Ute Mountain Tribal Farm; 37,500 acres in the Montezuma Valley with a full supply for MVIC that is available through early October in most years New tail water trout fishery from below McPhee to Bradfield Bridge of variable quality, primarily due to impacts from low flow years. Added ~3800 surface acres of flat-water sport fishing on McPhee Reservoir. From , whitewater boa ng opportuni es at or above 500 cfs have averaged 26.8 days/year between April 25-July 1. From , boa ng opportuni es have not been available 30% of the years, or one out of 3.3 years. Reduced spill frequency impacts spawning areas and pool habitat, and decreases instream habitat diversity. Modified ming of spills has led to fewer opportuni es for na ve fish to spawn successfully. Year-round flow benefits to trout (cold water reach), na ves (warm water reaches) and other introduced, non-na ve species. New non-na ve fish popula ons in McPhee are now a threat to the downstream na ve fish if they escape ( e.g. walleye). Escaped smallmouth bass, green sunfish, and other compe tors (ca ish, carp, bullheads) are occupying the same habitats as warmwater na ve species. Brown trout that occupy the transi onal reach from Bradfield Bridge to the Dove Creek pumps poten ally affect na ves. McPhee Dam created 12 miles of coldwater river below the dam that is undesirable to warmwater na ve fish. The dam is a barrier to na ve fish access to Plateau, Beaver, and House creeks, and creates 10 miles of flat-water habitat unusable by na ve fish. 3

6 What ac ons are being taken to address these challenges? In response to these challenges, the Legislative Subcommittee of the Lower Dolores Working Group hired independent isheries scientists to evaluate the status of the ishery and identify opportunities to help native ish. The Implementation Team was then formed, which created the Lower Dolores River Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation Plan. These nine opportunities identi ied by the A Way Forward report are being evaluated and pursued in an attempt to improve native ish populations and monitor progress toward that goal. The scientists studied all the available science and data about native ish in the lower Dolores River. In August 2011, they released a report titled A Way Forward summarizing that information and suggesting opportunities to bene it the native ish. Their conclusions formed the basis for the recommendations in the Implementation Plan. 1. Spill Management 2. Base low Management The Implementation Plan describes opportunities for improving the viability of native ish in the Dolores River below McPhee Dam. The plan takes the information in the A Way Forward report and creates a collaborative framework to prioritize, act on, monitor, and evolve management actions to bene it native ish. 3. Geomorphic Processes - Sediment Flushing Flows 4. Geomorphic Processes - Habitat Maintenance Flows 5. Thermal Regime Modi ication 6. Reduce Coldwater Invasive Effects - Discontinue Stocking 7. Reduce Coldwater Invasive Effects - Reduce Brown Trout Reproductive Success 8. Reduce Warmwater Invasive Effects - Disadvantage Smallmouth Bass Reproductive Success 9. Supplement Adult Native Fish Smallmouth bass captured in the Dolores River 4

7 Who hired the researchers and why? In December 2008, a diverse group of stakeholders known as the Lower Dolores River Working Group began meeting regularly to provide input to the Dolores Public Lands Of ice (Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management) on how the lower Dolores River corridor should be managed. In addition, the group considered the inding of the lower Dolores River as preliminarily suitable as a Wild and Scenic River in the San Juan Public Lands Draft Land Management Plan. If determined to be suitable, the lower Dolores could be legislatively designated as a Wild and Scenic River, a designation that may carry with it a federal reserved water right. In March 2010, the Lower Dolores Working Group decided to seek legislation that would protect the values that are the basis for Wild and Scenic River designation in a manner that does not involve a federal reserved water right and protects existing water rights, property rights, and Dolores Project allocations. A Legislative Subcommittee was formed and is working on legislative principles for a National Conservation Area along the river corridor from McPhee Dam to Bedrock as a more lexible, locally crafted alternative to a Wild and Scenic River designation. A major issue for the Legislative Subcommittee was what to do about ish and lows in the lower Dolores. The subcommittee could not decide how the legislation should handle these issues, so it launched an effort to gather all available scienti ic information about the native ish in the river to help inform the discussion. They hired three recognized and respected independent native isheries experts to assemble and interpret existing data. The resulting inquiry was called A Way Forward. Their indings were published in a report that listed nine opportunities for helping native ish. These nine opportunities were evaluated by the Implementation Team and have been integrated into an Implementation Plan that will attempt to improve native ish populations and monitor progress toward that goal. Who makes up the Implementation Team? Local managers and representatives from state, federal, and conservation organizations agreed that it would be best to begin implementing these opportunities prior to the NCA legislation. They formed an Implementation Team, which consists of representatives of these key entities: Dolores Water Conservancy District Montezuma Valley Irrigation Company Bureau of Reclamation Bureau of Land Management US Forest Service Colorado Parks and Wildlife American Whitewater The Nature Conservancy San Juan Citizens Alliance Trout Unlimited The Implementation Team has been meeting regularly since July 2011 and has prepared the Implementation Plan. 5

8 Lower Dolores River Map Timeline 1885: Appropriation of irst signi icant Trans-Basin Diversion out of the Dolores River 1975: Wild and Scenic River Suitability designation and Instream Flow Appropriation 1984: McPhee Dam completed 1996: Base low allocation changed from Indexed Flows to Managed Fish Pool 2000: Dolores Project fully operational 2004: Dolores River Dialogue formed 2006: Range Wide Conservation Agreement 3 Native Fish Species 2007: Draft San Juan Forest/BLM Plan inds lower Dolores Preliminarily Suitable with native Roundtail Chub as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value 2008 : Lower Dolores Working Group convened by the Dolores River Dialogue at the request of the Dolores Public Lands Of ice (Forest Service and BLM) 2010 (March): LDWG appoints Legislative Subcommittee to explore NCA legislation 2010 (Fall): Legislative Subcommittee launches A Way Forward native ish science evaluation 2011 (June): Legislative Subcommittee and A Way Forward Oversight Panel rank 9 opportunities identi ied by scientists to improve native ish status 2011 (July): A Way Forward Implementation Team formed 2011 (August): A Way Forward scientists issue inal report 2012 (July): The irst Implementation, Monitoring & Evaluation Plan completed 6

9

10 What measures are recommended to improve na ve fish survival? The researchers report listed nine opportunities that are likely to help the native ish. They can be condensed to four primary management opportunities: Altering the timing and low rates of the annual managed boating release (spill) to improve opportunities for native ish spawning and recruitment Enhancing habitat and spawning sites by providing periodic lushing and habitat maintenance lows Improving base lows below McPhee Reservoir, which would provide more water in the river during periods critical for growth and survival Reducing non-native predatory ish, particularly smallmouth bass Sediment builds up in pools, reducing habitat Na ve fish are highly impacted by non-na ve predators Shallow, unusable riffles Prolonged Low Flows Deep, usable riffles Sediment is cleaned from pools by high flows Na ve fish can escape non-na ve predators 8 Adequate, Properly Timed Flows

11 Where are we going from here? Water managers, state and federal entities, and conservation organizations will continue to work together to implement management opportunities identi ied by scientists to protect native ish. Current efforts include: Changing the managed release of surplus spring water unable to be captured in the reservoir to improve habitat and spawning conditions for native ish while providing diverse lows for recreational boating Identifying and working on activities that improve the reliability of water supplies, increase the ef iciency of water use and maximize water availability for all water interests in the Dolores River Implementing water management strategies that disadvantage non-native predators to native ish, and pursuing other opportunities to reduce predation Dolores roundtail chub captured in Slickrock Canyon 9

12 Key Ques ons When you talk about enhancing base lows, does that mean taking water away from current water-users? No. Honoring existing water rights is a key principle behind the creation of the Dolores River Dialogue, Lower Dolores Working Group, Legislative Subcommittee, and Implementation Team. If base lows are going to be increased, it will have to be done through a method that increases water availability, such as building additional storage, making ef iciency improvements, and/or leasing or purchasing water from a willing lessor or seller. How much water is needed? 4,000 to 5,000 acre-feet has been identi ied in previous Dolores Project documents and continues to be an important goal. Is this enough water to make a difference? Yes. For example, an additional 4,500 acre-feet of water would provide about a 33% increase to average summer lows over the course of three months. Increasing base lows by one-third during critical periods would improve habitat and increase the likelihood of native ish survival and growth. Better habitat increases access to food and diminishes the pressures from non-native, invasive predators like the smallmouth bass. Are native ish in competition with trout? If native ish increase in numbers, does that mean there will be fewer trout? No. Flow conditions that support trout are very similar to those that support native ish. The difference is that trout thrive in cold water, while the three Photo: Sam Green 10

13 native species inhabit warm water. Their habitats overlap in the river reach between Brad ield Bridge and the Dove Creek pumping station, a transitional reach where cold water released from McPhee warms up. While brown trout will eat native ish, the small area of overlap limits their interactions. Are native ish in competition with whitewater boating? No. Flows that provide acceptable to optimal whitewater boating can also ful ill a range of critical ecosystem needs. These include cleaning spawning beds, creating deep pools for ish, and introducing nutrients into the river system from the surrounding loodplain. Biologists, whitewater enthusiasts, and water managers have recently found ways to meet the low needs of ish and boaters in complementary ways. This means that managed releases from McPhee can improve the health of ish populations while also creating high-quality rafting, kayaking, and canoeing opportunities. What is the current status of the National Conservation Area proposal? It is still being developed. Legislation has not been written as of summer 2012, but the Legislative Subcommittee continues to work on the NCA proposal. The subcommittee is identifying an appropriate boundary and set of management directives that provide protection for the Dolores River and its unique cultural, geologic, scenic, recreational and ecological values, while protecting current land and water rights. This is a long-standing, communitywide process designed to ensure that broadly acceptable solutions for our communities are reached. In accordance with this principle, once drafted, legislation will be thoroughly discussed and vetted by the local community before moving forward. How can I learn more? Please see the A Way Forward report and the full Lower Dolores River Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for complete details and further explanation of all of the above questions. These are available on the DRD website at If you would like to schedule a presentation about the Implementation Plan, please contact the Dolores Water Conservancy District of ice at

14

15 LOWER DOLORES RIVER IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN OVERVIEW July 2012 Photo: John Fielder

16 LOWER DOLORES RIVER IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING & EVALUATION PLAN OVERVIEW July 2012